Of course there is! People can't just *assume* a burden of proof. If they assert that such an unempirical entity exists, they deserved to be challenged on it, and prove that one exists!
There is no burden if a person doesn't want to engage with someone else. The burden to prove is a burden to demonstrate or to teach. Maybe I have already done the proving to others or to myself and that's all I want to do. I'm under no obligation to keep doing it.
Who "should" prove what is ultimately subjective, like all "should" or "ought" statements.
However, if we agree on some set of rules by convention, then we can objectively determine if one is or is not following those rules. That is an objective standard. An objective standard is subjective at base.
In any case, science does not do "proof" in the ultimate sense. A scientific proof is a qualified proof. Consider the term: "scientific proof"
In that term all the limitations and qualifications of science apply the word "proof". Science is intrinsically provisional, therefore a "scientific proof" can only mean "provisional proof".
Don't know about that, but I think all my gray hairs are a proof of burdens.
ReplyDeleteOf course there is!
ReplyDeletePeople can't just *assume* a burden of proof. If they assert that such an unempirical entity exists, they deserved to be challenged on it, and prove that one exists!
There is no burden if a person doesn't want to engage with someone else. The burden to prove is a burden to demonstrate or to teach. Maybe I have already done the proving to others or to myself and that's all I want to do. I'm under no obligation to keep doing it.
ReplyDeleteDoug,
ReplyDeleteYou have asserted that a burden of proof exists. How will you prove it exists? ;-)
Who "should" prove what is ultimately subjective, like all "should" or "ought" statements.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if we agree on some set of rules by convention, then we can objectively determine if one is or is not following those rules. That is an objective standard. An objective standard is subjective at base.
In any case, science does not do "proof" in the ultimate sense. A scientific proof is a qualified proof. Consider the term:
"scientific proof"
In that term all the limitations and qualifications of science apply the word "proof". Science is intrinsically provisional, therefore a "scientific proof" can only mean "provisional proof".